Before we move completely on, I want to share two questions that have been
puzzling me from the Rommetviet article. I really liked his critique of
"third person" or "individual organism" psychology, found his discussion of
Dilthey's emphasis on the centrality of meaning versus Ebbinghaus's
orientation to modeling psychology after the natural sciences to be
valuable, and learned a few things from his brief discussion of Hull,
Chomsky and others. But I am a little stuck trying to answer these
questions, which indicate there may be something pretty basic about the
article that I am not getting:
One, about the "novel" term "coauthorship": how is this different from the
concept of co-construction?
Two, why call it a "second person" psychology if it is about coauthorship
and shared meaning - wouldn't it make more sense to call it a "first person
plural" psychology - as in, it certainly isn't just about me, but it isn't
just about you - its about "us" ... ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:43:01 PST